JUDGMENT By the Court—Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and also perused the judgment of Hon’ble Single Judge. 2. Instant appeal, under the Rules of the Court, is preferred against the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 3.3.2006 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46477 of 2005 allowing the writ petition of the petitioner-respondent. 3. Shri Y.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that since the orders dated 21.6.2005 and 22.6.2005 had not been set aside by the Hon’ble Single Judge, thus, the respondent-appellant has a right to manage the institution and the Hon’ble Single Judge ought not to have appointed the authorised controller and directed to hold fresh election. We do not find any substance in the submission. The Hon’ble Single Judge has found that the alleged election held in the year 1999 by which the appellant committee of management was elected and the subsequent election held in the year 2002 were not valid and thus, set aside the same and directed the Joint Director of Education to appoint an independent officer of the Education Department for holding fresh election of the committee of management within fifteen days from the date of production of certified copy of the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge. It has further been provided in the order under appeal that the election officer, so appointed by the Joint Director of Education, shall publish a tentative list of the members, who are entitled to participate in the election and shall also invite objections and thereafter he shall decide those objections by a speaking order within four weeks thereafter and conduct the election of the committee of management in accordance with the approved scheme of administration. 4. We are of the view that in the facts of the case and also in view of the fact that the elections held in the year 1999 and 2002 were found to be invalid, the Hon’ble Single Judge is right in directing to hold fresh election by an independent agency. Even during the course of submission in spite of repeated request, learned Counsel for the appellant could not show any evidence or material nor has brought anything on record to show that the elections held in the year 1999 and 2002 were validly held. 5. Even during the course of submission in spite of repeated request, learned Counsel for the appellant could not show any evidence or material nor has brought anything on record to show that the elections held in the year 1999 and 2002 were validly held. 5. The contention that since the orders dated 21.6.2005 and 22.6.2005 were not set aside, the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge is wrong, has also no substance for the reason that the elections of the year 1999 and 2002 having been found to be invalid, all subsequent actions or orders are also illegal and non est in the eyes of law. Thus, we do not find any fault in the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge. 6. The special appeal, being without merit, is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed. —————